COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements

BETTY M. RICHARDS

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1326-12-2 PER CURIAM

APRIL 2, 2013

ROBERT E. RICHARDS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POWHATAN COUNTY

Paul W. Cella, Judge

(Renay M. Fariss, on briefs), for appellant.

(Charles E. Adams; Anastasia K. Jones, Guardian ad litem for the

minor child; Law Offices of Zwerdling, Oppleman and Adams, on 

brief), for appellee.

Betty M. Richards (mother) appeals a custody and visitation order. Mother argues that the 

trial court erred in (1) failing to hear evidence or schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue of 

mother’s visitation with the child; (2) “adopting a [juvenile and domestic relations district court]

Order in which the entirety of the visitation provisions had been stricken by the [JDR] court judge”; 

(3) adopting a proposed order drafted by Robert E. Richards’ (father) counsel because it contained 

visitation provisions not previously ordered; (4) depriving mother of alternating week visitation, 

weeknight visitation, Thanksgiving visitation in odd years, Christmas visitation in even years, 

Easter visitation in odd years, and extended weekend federal holiday visitation; and (5) failing to 

rule on mother’s motion to reconsider and set aside. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the 

parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the 

decision of the trial court. See Rule 5A:27.

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

UNPUBLISHED
- 2 -

BACKGROUND

The parties have one child, who was born in July 2002. In August 2010, the parties 

reached an agreement relating to custody, visitation, and support, which was incorporated into a 

JDR court order. The parties agreed to joint legal custody with shared physical custody. The 

parties agreed to a visitation schedule, in which they divided weekdays, weekends, and holidays.

In May 2011, father moved to amend custody and visitation. On November 12, 2011, the 

JDR court entered an order granting sole legal and physical custody to father. The JDR court 

awarded visitation to mother every other week. The order contained a vacation schedule, but the 

JDR court crossed out and deleted the visitation schedule relating to the child’s birthday, 

Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year’s Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, July 4, 

Memorial Day, and Labor Day. Both parents appealed the JDR court order to the trial court.

A hearing was held on February 22, 2012. After hearing the evidence and argument, the 

trial court ordered sole legal and physical custody to father. The trial court held that the current 

visitation schedule was not in the child’s best interests during the school year, and awarded 

mother visitation every other weekend during the school year and alternating weeks during the 

summer. The trial court also adopted a visitation schedule similar to the earlier version of the 

JDR court order of November 2, 2011 before significant portions of that order were crossed out 

and deleted by the JDR judge.

The trial court asked father’s counsel to prepare the order. When father submitted a 

proposed order, mother objected to some of the provisions in the proposed order. The trial court 

then asked both parties to submit proposed orders and their objections to the other party’s order. 

After reviewing both parties’ proposed orders and objections, the trial court prepared its own 

order and circulated it to counsel for endorsement. The trial court entered the final order on May 

30, 2012.
- 3 -

On June 13, 2012, mother filed a motion to reconsider and set aside. She did not request 

a hearing, and the trial court did not rule on the motion.1

ANALYSIS

Assignments of error 1 and 4 - Visitation

Mother argues that the trial court erred in not scheduling an evidentiary hearing on the 

issue of visitation and in ordering the visitation schedule as set out in the May 30, 2012 order.

“In matters of custody, visitation, and related child care issues, the court’s paramount 

concern is always the best interests of the child.” Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 

S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990). “A trial court’s determination with regard to visitation is reversible only 

upon a showing that the court abused its discretion.” Stadter v. Siperko, 52 Va. App. 81, 88, 661 

S.E.2d 494, 497 (2008) (citing M.E.D. v. J.P.M., 3 Va. App. 391, 398, 350 S.E.2d 215, 221

(1986)).

After the trial court issued its ruling from the bench, it asked father’s counsel to submit a 

proposed order. Mother objected to father’s proposed order and requested a hearing on 

visitation. Mother contends the trial court erred by not scheduling a separate hearing for the 

visitation matters.2

 1 The motion to reconsider addressed mother’s concerns that father was not acting as the 

child’s primary caregiver during the week, and she argued that she should be the child’s primary 

caregiver. The record includes an email from the trial court judge to the clerk’s office. The 

email indicates that the judge received the motion to reconsider, but he “was not going to take 

any action on it at this time” and was waiting for mother’s counsel to schedule a hearing. 

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court was aware of the motion to reconsider for purposes of 

Rule 5A:18. See Brandon v. Cox, ___ Va. ___, 736 S.E.2d 695 (2012).

2 For the first time on appeal, mother also contends the trial court violated her due 

process rights by not scheduling a separate visitation hearing. This argument was not listed as an 

assignment of error pursuant to Rule 5A:20(c), nor was it presented to the trial court. See Ohree 

v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998). Therefore, we will not 

consider it.
- 4 -

Mother appealed the JDR court order, and specifically stated that she was appealing the 

custody and visitation issues. The parties appeared before the trial court for approximately four 

hours to present their evidence and argument. Both parties discussed not only the custody 

situation, but also visitation issues. In fact, mother’s counsel stated in her opening argument, 

“We’d also ask you to consider allowing the current visitation schedule to stay in place with 

some modifications, of course.” In her closing argument, mother’s counsel argued for the status 

quo with visitation every other week and a “shared holiday provision for all of the major 

holidays.”

The parties placed the issues of custody and visitation before the trial court. The trial 

court heard sufficient evidence to make a decision regarding mother’s visitation after 

determining that father would have sole legal and physical custody. There was no error in not 

scheduling another hearing for visitation.

Furthermore, the trial court did not err in awarding mother visitation every other weekend 

during the school year, alternating weeks in the summer, and shared holiday visitation. Mother 

contends the trial court erred in not awarding her additional visitation; however, mother presents 

no evidence to show that the trial court abused its discretion with its visitation award.

Assignment of error 2 – Rule 5A:18

Mother argues that the trial court erred in adopting the JDR court order which contained 

the visitation provisions that were crossed out. Mother did not note this objection to the final 

order or in her motion to reconsider.

“No ruling of the trial court . . . will be considered as a basis for reversal unless an 

objection was stated with reasonable certainty at the time of the ruling, except for good cause 

shown or to enable the Court of Appeals to attain the ends of justice.” Rule 5A:18.
- 5 -

We “will not consider an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.” 

Ohree, 26 Va. App. at 308, 494 S.E.2d at 488. “The purpose of Rule 5A:18 is to allow the trial 

court to correct in the trial court any error that is called to its attention.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 

512, 514, 404 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1991) (en banc).

Accordingly, we will not consider this argument.

Assignment of error 3 – Rule 5A:20

Mother argues that the trial court erred in adopting the proposed order drafted by father’s 

counsel, which contained visitation provisions not previously ordered by any court. Mother’s 

briefs do not contain any principles of law or citations to legal authorities to develop her 

argument.

Rule 5A:20(e) mandates that appellant’s opening brief include “[t]he standard of review 

and the argument (including principles of law and authorities) relating to each assignment of 

error.”

Mother has the burden of showing that reversible error was committed. See Lutes v. 

Alexander, 14 Va. App. 1075, 1077, 421 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1992). Unsupported assertions of 

error “do not merit appellate consideration.” Buchanan v. Buchanan, 14 Va. App. 53, 56, 415 

S.E.2d 237, 239 (1992).

We find that mother’s failure to comply with Rule 5A:20(e) is significant, so we will not 

consider the third assignment of error. See Fadness v. Fadness, 52 Va. App. 833, 851, 667 

S.E.2d 857, 866 (2008) (“If the parties believed that the circuit court erred, it was their duty to 

present that error to us with legal authority to support their contention.”); Parks v. Parks, 52 

Va. App. 663, 664, 666 S.E.2d 547, 548 (2008).
- 6 -

Assignment of error 5 – Rule 5A:18

Mother filed a motion to reconsider and set aside. The trial court received the motion, 

but was waiting for mother to schedule a hearing, which she did not. Mother now argues that the 

trial court erred by not ruling on her motion to reconsider and set aside.

“[T]here is no ruling for us to review” because appellant failed to request a hearing and

obtain a ruling. Fisher v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 447, 454, 431 S.E.2d 886, 890 (1993). 

Therefore, we will not consider this assignment of error.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is summarily affirmed. Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.